What's new

ABF | Driver-facing Cameras

iam4us said:
told ABF spent 80 million on all this. .
Click to expand...

If they only use the forward facing camera they will pay for themselves. The cameras in the 2017 and 2018s have forward facing cameras and they have paid for themselves plus dividends when the cameras show that the ABF driver was not at fault.

I was told that Wal-mart is using the driver facing cameras and they lost a big lawsuit when the Wal-mart driver was not at fault. The driver facing camera showed that the Wal-mart driver had rubbed his eyes several times in the minutes before the accident and thus the guilty party was able to show that the Wal-mart driver was tired and could have possibly avoided the accident if had been better rested despite being not at fault as the forward facing camera showed.
 
canaryinthemine said:
Is it a forgery? ........a photo-shopped incendiary from the basements of Fort Smith?

Use of the Teamster emblem is a violation of trademark laws......among other things........

And.........if the Teamsters do fall flat on their collective faces,.....and reduce themselves to craven beggars.....

......there’s always the letters that employees should have filed with management, stating that the company does NOT have your permission to ....view, use, store , or sell........your private image.....without your consent, on a per incidence basis......

That would make it a legal issue,......a Fourth Amendment issue,....and, in light of the many privacy issues being reported in the daily news,.......I’m sure there are some lawyers who would take these cases on a “pro bono” basis.....
Click to expand...
Not sure why you interpret my post as this being a forgery. Also I take issue with your comments about right to privacy, using likeness, etc..
As far as I can research, there are no laws that say we cannot be video taped, It only states "In areas of reasonable expectation of privacy, such as restrooms, locker rooms, etc.. Their are many references to video of property and we would be operating in ABF property. We are video taped in lots, driver rooms and docks now.. How are trucks different. Using our likeness would mean putting our likeness out to public without permission.
As far as Ernie Sohls letter, I never said it was fake, I said ABF is disregarding it and putting their cameras in use. There is no language that says they cant.. If so present it to me.
Dont get me wrong, I am totally against and feel we should have specific language as to No Cameras, Period.. But I feel you are spreading disinformation and that Our Union can and will do something about this..
 
The Employer shall not install or use video cameras in areas of the Employer’s premises that violate the employee’s right to privacy such as in bathrooms or places where employees change clothing or provide drug or alcohol testing specimens. Section 3. Computer Tracking Devices Computer tracking devices, commonly known as “Black Boxes”, mandated by regulations shall not be used for disciplinary purposes, except in those incidents of violations of Federal Mandated Regulations or when an employee has intentionally committed malicious damage to the Employer’s equipment or when an employee has unsafely operated the Employer’s commercial motor vehicles. Section 3. Audio, Video and Computer Tracking Devices The Employer may use video, still photos derived from video, electronic tracking devices and/or audio evidence to discipline an employee without corroboration by observers if the employee engages in conduct such as dishonesty, theft of time or property, vandalism, or physical violence for which an employee could be discharged without a warning letter. If the information on the video, still photos, electronic tracking devices and/or audio recording is to be utilized for any purpose in support of a disciplinary or discharge action, the Employer must provide the Local Union, prior to the hearing, an opportunity to review the evidence used by the Employer.

This all that our contract states.. No where does it say not in trucks, and also freely gives company right to discipline by use of.. This is why they purchased and will use them.. Nothing that states they cant..
 
iam4us said:
Not sure why you interpret my post as this being a forgery. Also I take issue with your comments about right to privacy, using likeness, etc..
As far as I can research, there are no laws that say we cannot be video taped, It only states "In areas of reasonable expectation of privacy, such as restrooms, locker rooms, etc.. Their are many references to video of property and we would be operating in ABF property. We are video taped in lots, driver rooms and docks now.. How are trucks different. Using our likeness would mean putting our likeness out to public without permission.
As far as Ernie Sohls letter, I never said it was fake, I said ABF is disregarding it and putting their cameras in use. There is no language that says they cant.. If so present it to me.
Dont get me wrong, I am totally against and feel we should have specific language as to No Cameras, Period.. But I feel you are spreading disinformation and that Our Union can and will do something about this..
Click to expand...


Then if the letter is not.....forged/photoshopped,.......it is an official correspondence from the Teamsters....
...I do not know if it is from Ernie Soehl...The bottom signature part of the letter(required...)...is missing.

The only "disinformation" being spread, apparently,...is from ArcBest,...in having "informational" meetings without Union representation present.

There are plenty of laws concerning your Right of Privacy,....based on the Fourth Amendment's "reasonable expectation to be secure in their PERSONS, houses, papers, and effects..."
Since cameras weren't invented then,.....the interpretation is based on several decades-old Supreme Court decisions....
You're quoting NMFA contractual language, as far as "locker rooms" and such....That's not law......And,....when a new requirement of employment,...such as adding driver-facing cameras, and having drivers ACCEPT them,...appears,....that condition MUST be negotiated, as it is a violation of NLRB law to....change "conditions of employment" on existing employees.

If, as you say,....ABF/ArcBest is going to ignore the letter from the Teamsters, and institute use of the cameras,....then that would be grounds for several actions by the Teamsters,....grievances, Labor Board charges,...possibly "not bargaining in Good Faith" charges,....maybe even Legal charges.
Frankly, I think if ABF/ArcBest was going to...."ignore"....any letter from the Teamsters,...they would just do it,....and not bother to announce some arbitrary future date on which the "ignoring" will start.

They are NOT sure of their legal standing, as regards the driver-facing cameras....Proof of that....is the Yellow Tape.......
 
iam4us said:
The Employer shall not install or use video cameras in areas of the Employer’s premises that violate the employee’s right to privacy such as in bathrooms or places where employees change clothing or provide drug or alcohol testing specimens. Section 3. Computer Tracking Devices Computer tracking devices, commonly known as “Black Boxes”, mandated by regulations shall not be used for disciplinary purposes, except in those incidents of violations of Federal Mandated Regulations or when an employee has intentionally committed malicious damage to the Employer’s equipment or when an employee has unsafely operated the Employer’s commercial motor vehicles. Section 3. Audio, Video and Computer Tracking Devices The Employer may use video, still photos derived from video, electronic tracking devices and/or audio evidence to discipline an employee without corroboration by observers if the employee engages in conduct such as dishonesty, theft of time or property, vandalism, or physical violence for which an employee could be discharged without a warning letter. If the information on the video, still photos, electronic tracking devices and/or audio recording is to be utilized for any purpose in support of a disciplinary or discharge action, the Employer must provide the Local Union, prior to the hearing, an opportunity to review the evidence used by the Employer.

This all that our contract states.. No where does it say not in trucks, and also freely gives company right to discipline by use of.. This is why they purchased and will use them.. Nothing that states they cant..
Click to expand...
Who are you fighting. We will see when it comes down to it. I for one will cover the thing whether the company wants me to or not. Then file a grievance and see where it goes. Big deal.
 
"Video surveillance laws differ greatly from state to state. ___There’s a total lack of federal laws prohibiting video surveillance in public, in the workplace, and elsewhere, sometimes known as CCTV, or closed-circuit television____. Most states allow this surveillance to occur, but there are some small exceptions, and some circumstances that require monitoring on a case-by-case basis."

There may be a few things that prohibit secretely taping, But informed taping on own property is widely acceptd. Everyone has surveillance, motion activated cameras, security cameras in business, etc etc.. Police are even able to use a third parties videoing as evidence in crimes. People are helped and hurt by insurance claims and videoing.. So I highly disagree with you.
 
First let me say, I no longer have a dog in this fight. I grinned and bared the last ten years as I watched this company go down hill in MHO. I retired early because I could see the hand writing on the wall. Now with all that said, what in again MHO, everyone should be talking to, putting on paper, text(and not deleting) your locals. You need to get every driver there, whether they mind having camera's or not, telling them no camera's, because once they're in they'll always be in. we got hosed the last two contracts because nobody stuck together, scream as loud as you can make the locals call the international, this is your last stand. You need to stop looking for reasons in the contract that lets them (Let them do their on work) This needs to be a one hundred percent NO.
 
wheelman1857 said:
First let me say, I no longer have a dog in this fight. I grinned and bared the last ten years as I watched this company go down hill in MHO. I retired early because I could see the hand writing on the wall. Now with all that said, what in again MHO, everyone should be talking to, putting on paper, text(and not deleting) your locals. You need to get every driver there, whether they mind having camera's or not, telling them no camera's, because once they're in they'll always be in. we got hosed the last two contracts because nobody stuck together, scream as loud as you can make the locals call the international, this is your last stand. You need to stop looking for reasons in the contract that lets them (Let them do their on work) This needs to be a one hundred percent NO.
Click to expand...
I'm curious, is this practice provided for in the contract?
 
canaryinthemine said:
Since cameras weren't invented then,.....the interpretation is based on several decades-old Supreme Court decisions....
You're quoting NMFA contractual language, as far as "locker rooms" and such....That's not law......And,....when a new requirement of employment,...such as adding driver-facing cameras, and having drivers ACCEPT them,...appears,....that condition MUST be negotiated, as it is a violation of NLRB law to....change "conditions of employment" on existing employees.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you've been in the industry for a long time. Are the cameras provided for in the contract? Did the installation of air ride seats, power steering and air conditioning in the tractors that were negotiated and did you use this equipment? That was a change of "conditions of employment" as well. And those things WERE provided for in a contract, and were negotiated on your behalf by a third party you chose to represent you, and agreed to be bound by the will of 50% + 1 members of your union.
 
almost13ranch said:
I'm sure you've been in the industry for a long time. Are the cameras provided for in the contract? Did the installation of air ride seats, power steering and air conditioning in the tractors that were negotiated and did you use this equipment? That was a change of "conditions of employment" as well. And those things WERE provided for in a contract, and were negotiated on your behalf by a third party you chose to represent you, and agreed to be bound by the will of 50% + 1 members of your union.
Click to expand...


And “cab-under” tractors......the right of drivers to refuse to drive such.....is in the contract. That was negotiated, too.......

Those things you mentioned above were negotiated,....rules applied to make sure drivers got them unilaterally......not based on company favoritism....

And that’s why any new requirement of employment is negotiated.....in a contract....
However,......if you don’t have a contract,....your merely showing up for work, punching in,...and accepting ANY condition your employer imposes.......unilaterally or not.....
....means, under Employment-at-Will,......you have “accepted” that condition....
And the company could give you a non-air conditioned truck, with no air seat and no power steering,.....while giving a new employee a brand new truck with all the “goodies”......You have no contractual recourse....

The camera use described in the contract is for random surveillance.......not singling out any one single employee.....
That would be using a camera......unilaterally.

A camera in your face.....all the time.....just you only.......is personal harassment......especially when the company has sole control of the camera and any content(your image)....is now the property of the....camera owner.
 
iam4us said:
"Video surveillance laws differ greatly from state to state. ___There’s a total lack of federal laws prohibiting video surveillance in public, in the workplace, and elsewhere, sometimes known as CCTV, or closed-circuit television____. Most states allow this surveillance to occur, but there are some small exceptions, and some circumstances that require monitoring on a case-by-case basis."

There may be a few things that prohibit secretely taping, But informed taping on own property is widely acceptd. Everyone has surveillance, motion activated cameras, security cameras in business, etc etc.. Police are even able to use a third parties videoing as evidence in crimes. People are helped and hurt by insurance claims and videoing.. So I highly disagree with you.
Click to expand...

You can disagree......but I thought you said you were......”against”...use of these personal cameras.

Would you be happy with a camera filming your every move? I know the official statement says they will only activate “30 seconds before and after” any hard braking event........
.......Uhhhh....yeah,.....right.......

But....would it make you happier knowing your employer OWNED any video of you generated........forever.....
......and you have no “right” to it......?

What if you......died in an accident on that trip.....and the ...company OWNED your last few recorded seconds on earth?

Starting to get a little squeamish?

Female truck drivers? Ethnic truck drivers? Your employer having complete control over the camera.......with NO oversight?

And,...of course....ALL employers are the most......Ethical....people in the world.....
 
almost13ranch said:
I'm sure you've been in the industry for a long time. Are the cameras provided for in the contract? Did the installation of air ride seats, power steering and air conditioning in the tractors that were negotiated and did you use this equipment? That was a change of "conditions of employment" as well. And those things WERE provided for in a contract, and were negotiated on your behalf by a third party you chose to represent you, and agreed to be bound by the will of 50% + 1 members of your union.
Click to expand...
Spray
almost13ranch said:
I'm curious, is this practice provided for in the contract?
Click to expand...
This specific practice was not discussed in the contract it was almost certainly on the minds of the ABF side during the negotiations but was not brought up until after the contract was signed for some unknown reason. I don’t remember any of us giving the company or the union the right to negotiate away our fourth amendment rights at least I didn’t.
 
iam4us said:
"Video surveillance laws differ greatly from state to state. ___There’s a total lack of federal laws prohibiting video surveillance in public, in the workplace, and elsewhere, sometimes known as CCTV, or closed-circuit television____. Most states allow this surveillance to occur, but there are some small exceptions, and some circumstances that require monitoring on a case-by-case basis."

There may be a few things that prohibit secretely taping, But informed taping on own property is widely acceptd. Everyone has surveillance, motion activated cameras, security cameras in business, etc etc.. Police are even able to use a third parties videoing as evidence in crimes. People are helped and hurt by insurance claims and videoing.. So I highly disagree with you.
Click to expand...
No matter how hard you lobby for it, there’s a large difference between cameras pointed at open spaces and cameras pointed at someones face. A person’s right to be secure in their persons and papers is a law that transcends a collective bargaining agreement. I don’t know of anybody that has granted either our union negotiators or the company side the right to violate our privacy.
 
Homesick said:
Possibly the purpose of being in a union is to have a voice in what the job is, how the company treats its employees, and the benefits of and with the job. But maybe I'm wrong! Maybe the sole purpose of the union is to stop inward facing cameras.?
Click to expand...
Agree & Correct , {1]voice in job "Cameras" {2} how company treats employees "Cameras" {3} to address problems {Cameras} , this is the problem at hand now and should be addressed or what else can they just keep changing in the new contract or should they just be able to change whatever they want to ?
 
Homesick said:
Possibly the purpose of being in a union is to have a voice in what the job is, how the company treats its employees, and the benefits of and with the job. But maybe I'm wrong! Maybe the sole purpose of the union is to stop inward facing cameras.?
Click to expand...

Hah! You mean they’ve finally found their purpose in life?

I’m sure an energetic and committed Union Official,....could add quite a list of "Life Purposes",...to just the "Stopping Camera use" issue......

But, Hey! We'll take what we can get! If this is their...."raison de la vie"........then,...I say: "Have At It!"
 
wongway said:
Agree & Correct , {1]voice in job "Cameras" {2} how company treats employees "Cameras" {3} to address problems {Cameras} , this is the problem at hand now and should be addressed or what else can they just keep changing in the new contract or should they just be able to change whatever they want to ?
Click to expand...


Absolutely! All these things MUST be negotiated.......

.....AND.......The unspoken "elephant in the room"........is: "Who OWNS your image,..once the company "collects" it?" Is it ......yours,....or theirs?

Can they....sell it,.....like so many other companies sell personal information...? Who will make the money off of sales of your...."personal image"?
The Person whose "image "it is?..........Or the Corporate entity who.....OWNS it?


No one seems to care that your employer is....collecting a personal image of you....And you have NO SAY-SO over what is done with that image...in the future...

That's why I think it is CRITICALLY IMPORTANT to give your employer a letter saying they do NOT have your permission to "view, use, store or sell" your PRIVATE image,...without your express permission,...on a "per incident" basis......

Regardless of how the Teamsters rule on this issue.......

And,..in light of the cameras,.......this should go for company picture I.D.'s, too........
 
Some of you are just paranoid conspiracy theorist. What in the hell do they want with your image? They simply want to make the company drivers more aware of safety and these cameras do have that byproduct. Multimillion dollar lawsuits can be eliminated in some cases. I will say it’s a double edged sword though because they can also crucify you. These cameras are all about insurance companies demanding them to reduce claims and cost. I hated them but you’re not going to stop them. GET THAT OUT OF YOUR HEAD! The Teamsters will cave in the end. ABF wouldn’t have invested millions unless they knew that down the road they could be fully activated. WAKE UP! You can continue to do all this posturing but it won’t do any good. Just accept the inevitable and move on. They aren’t all that bad honestly and can actually save your ass in some cases. I dealt with them at SAIA for a couple of years before I retired. I could have adapted to them but I just wanted out anyway. LTL takes a toll on a man’s life and actually shortens your lifespan according to multiple studies. I took my 401K and haven’t looked back. Best decision I ever made. I have my health and that says a lot after spending 45 years in this ****ed up and backstabbing business.
 
runawaytrain said:
Some of you are just paranoid conspiracy theorist. What in the hell do they want with your image? They simply want to make the company drivers more aware of safety and these cameras do have that byproduct. Multimillion dollar lawsuits can be eliminated in some cases. I will say it’s a double edged sword though because they can also crucify you. These cameras are all about insurance companies demanding them to reduce claims and cost. I hated them but you’re not going to stop them. GET THAT OUT OF YOUR HEAD! The Teamsters will cave in the end. ABF wouldn’t have invested millions unless they knew that down the road they could be fully activated. WAKE UP! You can continue to do all this posturing but it won’t do any good. Just accept the inevitable and move on. They aren’t all that bad honestly and can actually save your ass in some cases. I dealt with them at SAIA for a couple of years before I retired. I could have adapted to them but I just wanted out anyway. LTL takes a toll on a man’s life and actually shortens your lifespan according to multiple studies. I took my 401K and haven’t looked back. Best decision I ever made. I have my health and that says a lot after spending 45 years in this ****ed up and backstabbing business.
Click to expand...

I hear those ole cameras even record stop signs!
 
runawaytrain said:
Some of you are just paranoid conspiracy theorist. What in the hell do they want with your image? They simply want to make the company drivers more aware of safety and these cameras do have that byproduct. Multimillion dollar lawsuits can be eliminated in some cases. I will say it’s a double edged sword though because they can also crucify you. These cameras are all about insurance companies demanding them to reduce claims and cost. I hated them but you’re not going to stop them. GET THAT OUT OF YOUR HEAD! The Teamsters will cave in the end. ABF wouldn’t have invested millions unless they knew that down the road they could be fully activated. WAKE UP! You can continue to do all this posturing but it won’t do any good. Just accept the inevitable and move on. They aren’t all that bad honestly and can actually save your ass in some cases. I dealt with them at SAIA for a couple of years before I retired. I could have adapted to them but I just wanted out anyway. LTL takes a toll on a man’s life and actually shortens your lifespan according to multiple studies. I took my 401K and haven’t looked back. Best decision I ever made. I have my health and that says a lot after spending 45 years in this ****ed up and backstabbing business.
Click to expand...
Go pound sand you anti union piece of crap! The union will stand by the worker if the worker stands with the union. That’s how it works. I know of no one who wants these things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top